Seriously, are they? All these recruiting gurus seem to think so, but I’ve never seen any proof or evidence that they actually are.
The other day, I stumbled upon an article posted last year on ERE.net titled, The 20 Principles of Strategic Recruiting. It’s a good list, but principle number six just jumped out at me:
Target employed “non-lookers.” The best recruiting processes are designed to identify and successfully hire currently employed top performers.
So again, why? Is a top performer who’s looking somehow less desirable than a top-performer who is?
I get that top-performers who are looking don’t always just wander into your organization and aren’t always available when you have the perfect opening for them, so seeking them out makes sense. But I hear time and time again that passive candidates are better than active ones, and I don’t know why.
Executive recruiter Steven Gilbert defines active and passive candidates differently: Passive candidates are the ones who just don’t know about your open position yet.
I have heard this notion over and over again of passive candidates being somehow “better” and it is absolutely ridculous. I think it is more of an idea of accomplishment from the recruiters point of view to have found a candidate that was not actively searching for a new job. If the candidate that is supposedly “passive” why would they take a recruiters call in the first place? Does taking the call or responding to the recruiter then move them from the passive to the active category. Who thinks up this garbage? Oh, a recruiter, how silly of me
I like passive candidates, but few of us can get the volume we need without the active seeker. Balance is key, and you can’t drink the whole pitcher of consultant kool-aid, right?
@Jacqueline – I can actually see why someone who wasn’t looking for a job would take a call if the opportunity was good enough. I still don’t see how passive candidates are inherently *better* than actives ones, though.
@KD – I hear you! What’s the draw of passive candidates, though? Is it that they provide a nice pipeline, where as for timing reasons, active candidates can’t be “kept in the back pocket” for future positions as easily? Or is there something else?
I fully agree with you Chris. I have no idea where this notion of passive candidates being better comes from. Frankly I prefer active, so I am going to be active and go out and clean the pool so I can actively splash around in our 80 degree sunshine :)
@Jacqueline – I’m about to step out into beautiful 32 degree New England weather. Enjoy your sunshine, where you are!
I am in Florida!! Of course we are number 3 for home foreclosures and number 1 in unemployment but, at least we have the sun and it’s always 5:00 somewhere!